For Thursday: The Tempest, Act 1

Feel free to read past Act 1 if you like, though The Tempest is one of his shorter plays, so you shouldn't need to read ahead. However, I want to only discuss Act 1 in class since we have no adaptation to rely on. I want to make sure we can envision the characters and the basic plot before moving on. I'll also be handing out the Final Project assignment in Thursday's class, and (hint, hint) it's all about adaptation!

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: How is Prospero a king and a father very much in the mold of King Lear? What do we know about his history before he came to the island that might make us experience a bout of deja vu? 

Q2: Based on Act 1 alone, what might be the most difficult aspect of staging this play, especially in Shakespeare's day (but even today)? What makes it remarkably different from any play we've read so far, not just in the plot, but in the characters and setting? 

Q3: Caliban is treated like the bastard son of Prospero, tolerated much in the same way that Gloucester tolerated Edmund in Act 1 of King Lear. Yet he is also like Edgar, as he is cast out of Prospero's favor for commiting an unspeakable crime. Which one does he seem to be more like: the cunning and duiplicious Edmund, or the maligned and innocent Edgar? 

Q4: What seems to be Prospero's 'long game' in shipwrecking the galleon on the island so he can introduce Ferdinand to his daughter? What does he mean in his asides when he says, "It goes on, I see." What is 'going on' in his mind? 

For Tuesday: Wells, William Shakespeare: A Very Short Introduction, Chapters 6 and 8

Let's return one last time to our short supplementary text by Stanley Wells, and read Chapter 6 (Tragedy) and Chapter 8 (Tragicomedy). This will give us a little insight about the tragedies we've already read, and the strange 'tragicomedy' to come, The Tempest.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Wells writes that it is "unfashionable, indeed it is often regarded as unscholarly, to look for reflections of an artist's life in his work" (88). Why do you think this is? Wouldn't it be common sense to assume that a writer's life and events would spill into his work, even if only subsconciously? What might be the danger in looking to deeply for such connections? Would it be better to avoid them altogether?

Q2: Wells makes many critical assumptions in these chapters regarding interpretation, particularly in his brief discussion of the plays we've read in class--Macbeth and King Lear. Are there any assumptions that you disagreed with or wished he had supported wtih evidence? What might be the problem of taking these readings at face value?

Q3: Wells also suggests in Chapter 8 that Shakespeare might have actually been fired from his theatrical company as he got into his 40's. Why is this? What elements that he discusses in both Chapters 6 and 8 might have gradually made him less popular and less useful for a theater company? Do we see any evidence of this in King Lear?

Q4: According to this discussion of the 'tragicomedies' in Chapter 8, why might these be some of his least popular and known plays (excluding The Tempest, which is pretty well-known)? Why don't we read and perform Pericles or Cymbeline very often in colleges and Shakespeare-in-the-Park? Does Wells feel this neglected is warranted? 

For Thursday: King Lear, Acts 4-5 & In-Class Response (Paper #3!)

NOTE: See the revised course schedule below if you didn't get it in class on Tuesday, or lost it subsequently. We're changing a few things around to give us more time to read The Tempest, our last play, in the closing weeks. I abolished Paper #3 and made it a simple in-class response on Thursday, which you should get full points for--just remember to bring your book! Also, both Paper #2 and #3 (the in-class writing) have been reduced to 10 pts. each, since I made them both shorter, easier assignments. That makes the final assignment worth 30 pts, but it's not designed to be a killer assignment by any means. I think you'll enjoy it! I plan to assign it to you next week, so stay tuned...

Here are some idease to consider for the final acts:

* How do the characters' views of fate and the gods change as the play goes on? Lear, Gloucester, Kent, and all the old order seem to believe implictly in fate, revenge, and the forces of Juno. Do they still? Especially given that this is a tragedy and ends tragically!

* How do you read the scene where Edgar pretends to lead his father over the edge of a cliff? Is this a big joke? Is it a moment of comedy in the tragedy? Or is it meant to be deeply moving?

* What is Edmund's endgame in act 5, especially since he's seducing both sisters and playing them off of each other? IS this his plan, or is he falling victim to his own schemes and self-destruction? Has he become Macbeth at last?

* What happens to the Fool after Act 3, since he never returns to the play? Also, why does Cordelia return to the play only after the Fool vanishes? Does she play the role of the Fool for Lear (sort of like Caroline plays the role of wife/daughter for her father in A Thousand Acres?). 

* By the end of the play, who are the villains? Who are the heroes? Who is redeemed? Who is damned? Are any of these questions easy to answer? 

(RE) REVISED COURSE SCHEDULE FOR THE LAST WEEKS

NOVEMBER

T 5      Film Continued / Paper #2 due by 5pm

R 7      Shakespeare, King Lear, Act 1

 

T 12    Shakespeare, King Lear, Acts 2-3

R 14    Shakespeare, King Lear, Act 4-5 (In-Class Response is Paper #3!)

 

T 19    Wells, William Shakespeare, Chapters 6 & 8

R 21    Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act 1

 

T 26    Shakespeare, The Tempest, Acts 2-3

R 28    THANKSGIVING BREAK

 

DECEMBER

T 3      Shakespeare, The Tempest, Acts 4-5

R 5      Class Wrap-Up

 

FINAL EXAM PRESENTATIONS: TBA

For Tuesday: King Lear, Acts 2-3

NOTE: A LOT goes on in these acts, so just get as far as you can into Act 3 for Tuesday. We won't have time to talk about all of this, but we'll do as much as we can, including talking about the craziness of Act 3, scene 7, which is definitely not in A Thousand Acres (except very distantly). 

Answer TWO of the following:  

Q1: Act 2.2 is a strange scene, where Kent goes after Oswald like a man out for revenge. He not only viciously berates him (pp.83-85), but attacks him and seems on the verge of killing him. Since this scene almost comes out of nowhere, is this scene supposed to be played for laughs (like the Porter scene in Macbeth)? Is Kent just acting mad here for the audiences’ entertainment? And if so, why does Regan punish him so severely?

Q2: In Act 2, Scene 4, when Regan and Goneril decide to openly defy their father’s demands, Lear exclaims “I gave you all” (52).  This echoes his later line in the storm when he proclaims, “I am a man/More sinned against than sinning” (58). Are our sympathies starting to shift here? Is he simply a confused and abandoned old man left with "nothing"? Or is he merely acting to punish his daughers for not abasing themselves before him and fulfilling his every need? 

Q3: Act 3, Scene 6, the so-called “trial scene” only appears in the early quarto version of the play (Q1).  The authentic version of Lear was published in the complete version of Shakespeare’s works, the Folio version, in 1623, and this entire scene is missing.  Either Shakespeare thought the better of it and cut it or it simply got lost in translation.  The editors of this version, though following the Folio, decided to reinstate it.  What do we gain from having this scene in the play?  Does it underline or foreshadow important themes or events in the play?  Or is it too much of the same, including a lot of “nothing”?  

Q4: How do you account for the extreme cruelty of Act 3, Scene 7, where both sisters and Regan’s husband, Cornwall, gang up on Gloucester?  Though the sisters may have seemed cruel earlier in the play, here they are truly sadistic, taking glee in plucking Gloucester’s beard and removing his eyes.  Why do they do this, and how might earlier scenes have prepared us for this (or explained their motivation)? 

Q5: What do you think Edgar’s role in the play is as “Poor Tom”?  Though he has some of the craziest lines in the play, he is clearly acting, as he pops out of character at the End of 3.6 to talk to the audience.  Is he a foil to Lear?  A rival to the Fool?  Or a mirror to Cordelia (especially if she is the Fool)?  

For Thursday: King Lear, Act 1

NOTE: I said read Acts 1-2 for Thursday (which you can), but I forgot that the syllabus says only Act 1, which makes more sense. This is a BIG play with a lot of moving parts and characters, so let's take it slow. Besides, we'll never get through both acts in class on Thursday, and it's Election Day with all the resulting craziness, so just read the First Act. We'll hit 2-3 for next Tuesday.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: How do you read Cordelia's response to King Lear in Act 1, Scene 1? Is she being obstinate? Spoiled/entitled? Innocent/naive? Is she testing him like he seems to be testing her? What does she mean when she says, "I shall never marry like my sisters/To love my father all" (13)? 

Q2: How does Goneril share some characteristics with Rose from A Thousand Acres, and why might Jane Smiley have been inspired by her character from the beginning? While most characters in the play see her actions as "unnatural," does Shakespeare allow us to see her side of things? Are we sympathetic with her? Does she have a legitimate greviance against her father? And related to this, is he trying to provoke her?

Q3: In many ways, King Lear is a response to Macbeth, with some of the same language and themes (Hecate is invoked, as is the sense of things being 'unnatural'). How might Edmund be a version of Macbeth himself, but one who is more honest with his motivations and actions? How does he tell the audience who he is and what he is doing? (something Macbeth never really does).

Q4: In many of Shakespeare's plays, he introduces a character called a Fool, who is a professional comedian whose job is to provoke the nobility. While speaking in apparent riddles and nonsense, they also speak the truth to power. What is the Fool's message to King Lear, and how much does he seem to understand of it? Do you think it goes over his head...or does he understand it, and choose to ignore it? 

For Tuesday: A Thousand Acres (1997)

On Thursday, we watched the first hour or so of A Thousand Acres, which is an adaptation of Jane Smiley's novel which is in turn a loose adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear. There are some significant changes, as you'll see when we read the play, but most of the main machinery of the play emerges intact, including the relationships between the daughters and Lear himself. What changes is how the story is told from Virginia and Rose's perspective (Regan and Goneril in the play), and by the backstory Smiley adds to their tumultous life with their father. We'll come back to this perspective when we start reading Lear next week.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Why does the youngest daughter, Caroline, seem to refuse her father's offer of a one-third share in the company? What does she mean when instead of making up her father, she tells Virginia, "I hate the little girl stuff"? Does she seem to be doing this for the right reasons? 

Q2: How are Virginia and Rose a little like Lady Macbeth in Macbeth (at least before Act 5)? Why can they be seen as "fiendish wives" by some, even though their actions make sense in context? Are there any other other explicit connections between one or both of them to Lady Macbeth?

Q3: Why does Virginia strike up an adulterous romance with Jess Clark, the prodigial son who has returned to his father's farm? She seems to have a good marriage and a loving husband, unlike Rose, whose relationship with her husband hints at violence and disgust (especially of her recent operation). What might Jess see in her as well?

Q4: Rose drops a bombshell on Virginia the night of the storm, when she tells Virginia that their father had sex with them both for years (though Virginia claims not to remember any of this). Do you believe her? Is she saying this merely to get Virginia more on her side, and further away from their father & Caroline? Or was she simply waiting for the right moment to tell her (or maybe, waiting for Virginia to admit the truth herself)? NOTE: This isn't in Shakespeare, but is something Smiley added into her own novel. 

Q5: Larry Cook "Daddy" (or King Lear) is a figure of fear and malice in the movie, never kind, always menacing, and seeming to take pleasure in his daughter's disgrace. Why don't other people in the town see this, but instead, view him as a tragic, betrayed figure? And why does Caroline see the same "betrayed" father instead of the "betrayer"?  

Paper #2 assignment and A Thousand Acres

REMEMBER that we're going to start watching A Thousand Acres on Thursday, which is an adaptation of King Lear. Your second paper will be due on Tuesday, the day we finish the movie and start discussing it. 

English 3213

Paper #2: Magic or Madness?

INTRO: In Act 3, Scene 5, the character of Hecate enters the play, chiding the witches for their “trade and traffic” with Macbeth, and bidding the witches meet her at “the pit of Acheron…in the morning.” This scene could very well dispel the ambiguity of the play by making the witches, the magic, and a demon itself real, and potentially reducing Macbeth’s agency throughout the play. However, the scene also ties the play into the Elizabethan love of magic and devilry which we see in so many plays of the time, from Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus (where devils pull Dr. Faustus into hell itself), and Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream (where fairies exist side-by-side with mortals and cast spells on them). So it can work, but it becomes a very different play than the one where the audience is left to interpret the witches’ role in Macbeth’s madness, leaving him at center stage.

PROMPT: For this short paper, you have been commissioned to adapt a new version of Macbeth for performance at ECU. But the question is, should this production focus on magic or madness? Should it emphasize that the spirit world is manipulating Macbeth for its own macabre ends, or should it leave the witches at the margins, focusing on the human drama of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth? Which one would make the better play in your opinion?

To support your staging, discuss ONE PASSAGE/SPEECH that you feel would most benefit from your approach. Close read the passage, explaining the ideas/language in the passage, and show how emphasizing the magic or the madness angle would aid your interpretation of this passage, and give the entire play more power and purpose. You can briefly hint at other scenes as well, but focus your analysis solely on this one passage. A “passage” should be no more than a page or two, or even one speech. Don’t do an entire scene from an act, since this is designed to be a short, focused assignment.

ALSO: This is a short paper, so shoot for around 3 pages, though you can do a bit more if necessary. You MUST quote from the passage in question and close read it carefully to fulfill the assignment (don’t rely on summaries and paraphrases). You can use outside sources from the William Shakespeare: A Very Short Introduction or other sources (or other productions) if you think this will help, but it’s not required.

DUE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5^th by 5pm

For Thursday: Macbeth, Acts 3-4

An RSC production of Macbeth 

Though there are 5 questions here (I couldn't help myself), you still only have to answer TWO of them. 

Q1: Act 3.5, the scene with Hecate, is largely considered to be the work of Thomas Middleton, a contemporary playwright who wrote a play about witches at roughly the same time of Macbeth (he adapted Macbeth after Shakespeare’s retirement to make more money). In reading this scene, does anything strike you as different from the rest of the play? The language? Metaphors? Characterization? Or would you have assumed that Shakespeare wrote this, too?

Q2: How informed is Lady Macbeth about the murder of Banquo and the attempted murder on Fleance (his son)? Is she still the mastermind of the play, or has Macbeth usurped her role? Is there any way to tell who’s calling the shots at this point?

Q3: The “Murderers” that Macbeth hires in 3.1 aren’t really murderers at this point in the play (it’s clear that they haven’t murdered before, and are not professional assassins). How does Macbeth convince them to murder Banquo and/or how does he justify it to himself? Why, too, does he hire murderers now instead of doing the job himself, as he did with Duncan?

Q4: In Act 4, scene 3, Malcolm tells Macduff that "black Macbeth/will seem as pure as snow, and the poor state/Esteem him as a lamb, being compared/With my confineless harms...there's no bottom, none/In my voluptousness" (143). Why does he threaten to be an even worse ruler than Macbeth, and vow to debauch women, ruin men, and destroy order?

Q5: In Scene 2, Lady Macduff tells her son that Macduff (who has fled lest he be killed by Macbeth) is "dead" and "a traitor." Why does she say this, especially as her son knows that neither of them are true? Is she joking with him, or being deadly serious? You might also account for her line, "Why, I can buy me twenty [husbands] at any market."

For Tuesday: Macbeth, Acts 1-2

NOTE: The version of Macbeth by Roman Polansky we watched in class on Thursday covers Acts 1 and up to Act 2.1, right before the murder. Since Act 2 is very short, this will bring you up to speed on all the action in the play, and help you visualize it as you read. But pay close attention to the language, since the language of Macbeth is some of his most evocative, and is utterly unlike anything we've read in class so far.

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Though most of the play is in blank verse (unrhymed iambic pentameter), characters often end scenes with rhymed couplets, such as the following: “Away, and mock the time with fairest show./False face must hide what the false heart doth/know” (1.7). Why does Shakespeare do this? What does the flash of rhyme do for the play or the speech? How would we hear and experience this in the audience?

Q2: Most productions of the play portray Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as a couple that is fiercely in love (as we see in Polansky’s 1971 film). Is this corroborated in the text of Acts 1 and 2 itself? Where do we see a couple in love, rather than just another medieval arranged marriage? Why might this relationship be important for the audience to see, and hear, in the play itself?

Q3: One of the most famous speeches in the play is Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger which I see before me?” in Act 2.1. Read this speech carefully and discuss the construction of a particular line that would be difficult to translate into modern English. Why is this? What is Shakespeare trying to show us through this tortured syntax?

Q4: Macbeth is a play that is often staged historically, meaning its set in a time very close to the one Shakespeare portrays in the play. Why do you think this play might resist modernizing or setting in, say, modern-day New York or London? Discuss a scene or passage that might be difficult to realize in translation, and makes much more sense in an early medieval Scotland (as Polansky does).

For Tuesday: Ten Things I Hate About You (1999)

NOTE: We still have a bit of the film to watch, maybe 30 minutes or so, but feel free to answer these questions before we finish...OR, you can answer them sometime after class on Tuesday. But I want to grapple with the adaptation element of the film, since eventually this aspect will become important to your writing in the class (hint, hint). 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: First, the most obvious question: can Shakespeare be Shakespeare without the language? While they make a few "easter egg" attempts to preserve his language, such as when Cameron (Lucentio) says, "I burn, I pine, I perish...", most of it is completely modern. Is the plot and characters enough to perserve the tone and feel of a Shakespearean comedy? Or is this merely a comedy "inspired by" Shakespeare? Try not just to say yes or no, explain WHY you think this could still count as an adaption or not. 

Q2: How might the film explain some aspect of the play which either doesn't make sense, or isn't really explained by Shakespeare? In other words, why might this film be a 'theory' or a 'staging' of the play, which answers some of the questions left by Shakespeare for the actors and the audience?  OR, how could we take some of the ideas in this film and apply them backwards to the play? 

Q3: When Kat tells her friend (who has no real counterpart in the play) that she intends to boycott the prom because it's an antiquated mating ritual, her friend replies, "oh, so we're making a statement...oh goody, something new and different for us!" It's a funny line, but why might it also be pertinent to the play itself? 

Q4: Kat and Patrick lack a big "courting" scene like we get in Act 2 of the play, though they have several smaller ones sprinkled throughout the play. According to the film, why does she begin to fall in love with him? Is it because he's "crazy"--or willing to defy the roles of a typical lover--or is it more superficial (he learns what she likes and pretends to like them)? In other words, is their relationship closer to the play or closer to Hollywood comedies? 

Q5: Even though the play distances itself from its Shakespearean source, how does it subtly marry itself to a Shakespearean identity throughout the play? How effective are these attempts? Are they merely there for the 'insider,' or do they actually add something to the film itself? 

For Tuesday: The Taming of the Shrew, Acts 4-5

NOTE: NO QUESTIONS for Tuesday, since we'll do an in-class writing about the very end of the play--so keep reading and finish for Tuesday's class! Here are some ideas to consider that might help you...

* If Katherine and Petruchio seem to be intellectual equals in Acts 2 and 3, why does he use falcon-taming metaphors to discuss his ‘breaking of her? Couldn’t he win her by sheer love and respect at this point?

* Read Katherine’s final speech carefully, where she basically chides women for going against their husbands. What is different about her language here? Is this sincere…or is this acting? And if so, for whom?

* Is Katherine turned into Christopher Sly by the end of the play? Is that basically the entire joke of the play: that he gets to tell her who she is, and she believes it? Are we sure the lesson takes (see above question).

* Why do you think Shakespeare never returns to the world of Sly and the Induction? Wouldn’t that soften the cruel end of the play, and make it just a joke—not “real” and not the true point of the play? Or would it make the play too literal? (“all the world’s a stage,” etc.).

* Some modern version of The Taming of the Shrew have ‘solved’ the problem of Kate’s sadistic taming by switching genders: that is, a woman plays Pertruchio, and a man played Katherine. What problems might this solve for the audience? Or is this merely another case of believing too much in appearances?